legislation. not dealing with tens of jobs or hundreds of jobs or thousands of jobs, but millions of jobs. >> you know, my job every day is to work with our members find out where the center the of gravity is and try to move legislation that's in the best interests of our country. >> the transportation bill one of a number of issues making its way through the senate and the house. the comments of speaker of the house john boehner and the senate democratic leader harry reid earlier today. welcome to hour 2 of "washington today" carried live on c-span3. the senate democratic leaders today paradesing is the house speaker for his decision to take up the senate transportation bill or a similar measure. we'll talk more what this means, what's in the plan and some of the differences between the house and senate version. democrats and republicans notice house of representatives are showing that sometimes they can work together after all. they have overwhelmingly passed legislation today making it easier for small businesses and

for startup companies to raise capital in order to grow and hire new work hes. the package of a half dozen measures does have the backing of the president and senate democrats say they also also offer a similar package. meanwhile, the senate today has blocked several republican-backed attempts to overturn the president's environmental and energy policies during a debate on a bill to keep federal aid flowing to transportation projects across the country. part of the transportation bill. senate though today on a procedural vote not able to get the 60 votes necessary for the controversial xl keystone pipeline. the president himself calling a number of senate democrats urging them not to support the measure. again that measure that was put forth by senator hoeven of north dakota failing to get the necessary votes today. the senate has voted to use most of the water pollution fines from the gulf oil spill to pay for restoration in five gulf states. bp could be fined as much as $5.5 billion to as high as $21

billion under the clean water act. it depends on whether it's found grossly negligent. the states will then receive those funds. let's begin with a debate over the transportation bill. the hill newspaper again reporting the senate democratic leaders praszing the republican speaker of the house, john boehner. democratic leads in the senate believe any do have the upper hand when it comes to negotiations on the bill because the house is unable to come some sort of a final agreement on the measure. you heard just part of that from the speaker of the house, john boehner. let's show you how it unfolded first from the democratic side of the aisle, chuck schumer, democrat from the new york at a news conference earlier today. >> by tuesday, the senate will the have passed this bipartisan two-year package creating close to 3 million jobs, many of them in the construction trades which has high unemployment and which has been the drag on our economy. in previous economies, they would lower interest rates, construction workers would start

to work on building housing in particular and the economy would get going. we don't have that now and this highway bill will fill that gap. so in an election year like this one, the bipartisan senate agreement is a rare accomplishment. after the senate passes the bill on tuesday, all eyes will turn to the house. the question will again be,ing what will boehner do? earlier this week, he indicated he was open to bringing up the senate bill. then yesterday, he again tried to rally his troops in favor of chairman's original proposal that's going nowhere. speaker boehner told his members to get behind the mick ca bill because it bears their stamp. well, this senate bill bears a bipartisan stamp and i just hearding that speaker boehner has now said that he wants to pass the senate bill or something close to it. he should stick to that commitment and get it done right away. last time the speaker tried to

spurn a bipartisan deal on a must pass bill, he came to regret it. he should remember the lesson of the payroll tax cut debate and not repeat his mistake. whenever he lets a small group on the hard right dictate what he should do, he loses. and america loses. and bipartisanship loses. and we hope he's learned that lesson. it's clear he's wrestling with it, not only in his own mind but publicly in his varying statements. there's only one right path. and while we're at it, the same thing's happening on the budget. yesterday, the associated press reported a story that are "under tea party pressure, the house gop may renege on a budget deal. the speaker should remember a deal is a deal. the house republican leadership should not go back on their word just to quell another uprising by the tea party. again, he'll lose. on the budget like on everything else if he lets this small group

on the hard right dictate where the whole house should go. that's true on the highway bill. that was true on the payroll tax cut, and it will be true on the budget. >> senator chuck schumer earlier in the day. senate going through a series of votes as many as 30 different amendments on the transportation bill. let's talk about the schedule because the senate is expected to vote next week on this measure. the house, by the way, is in recess next week. it returns on march 19th. let's go to the house of representatives as speaker boehner was asked about the transportation bill earlier in the day. >> mr. speaker, can you give us an up to date kind of status report on transportation, how difficult it's going to be to bring the wings of your party together on this particular bill and will you, in fact, have tosh pass an extension? >> well, as a told the members yesterday that the current plan is to see what the senate can produce and to bring their bill up. and in the meantime, we're going

to continue to have conversations with members. a longer term approach which frankly, most of our members want but at this point in time, the plan is to bring up the senate bill. >> speaker boehner. >> or something like it. >> the comments of speaker of the house john boehner earlier in the day. nathan hurst is following all of this for congressional quarterly and joining us live on the phone here in washington. thanks very much for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> let's begin with the political divide within the house of representatives because clearly, the speaker of the house is having a challenge among congressional republicans. he met with them yesterday. what's the issue? what's the price tag of the transportation bill that the house is wrestling with and what is the senate looking at? >> well, in the house you're looking at a five-year $260 billion bill that will committee chairman john mica from florida introduced january 31st. and there were a number of issues in the bill that split

off those moderate republicans, what they were irritated with was a canceling of the mass transit account which takes part of the highway trust fund money and puts it toward public transportation. a lot of moderate republicans representing suburban districts, that was a no go. a number of tea party freshmen who are concerned about the amount of money being spent in the bill have said that they can't support it either. democrats have pretty much panned the bill in total as they're in favor of the bill which is a two-year bill that spends $109 billion. there's no changes to the mass transit account. the big problem there, of course, it's not a very long-term bill which doesn't provide a lot of certainty for localities and states that the use road call money. >> the senate democratic leaders believe they have the upper hand on this issue. how and why? >> well, they believe they've got the upper hand here because today, very last night it became clear that there had been a path forward for a number of

amendments to get moved on the senate's bill. the senate's bill also was reported out of the environment and public works committee in november with absolute unanimous support so they feel like they have an upper hand here because there have already been republicans that have given their support for the bill and they believe that they can twist enough arms in the house to get it through. >> so outside of the price tag which obviously is snifth between two and five years, what's the difference between a two-year bill and a five-year transportation bill? >> well, the five-year bill does dollars provide some more streamlining overhauls as far as project regulations that a lot of people, especially republicans have been looking for. but the main difference is the certainty with which projects are given because most road projects last much longer than two years. and so the concern among a number of stakeholders, states and localities in particular are that a two-year bill wouldn't provide enough funding certainty

to get some of the larger projects, a lot of road repairs, bridge replacements that kind of thing through. >> we're talking with nathan hurst. what is the biggest issue that speaker boehner is facing among those freshmen republicans? is it the price tag for the transportation bill? >> yes, it's definitely the price tag. it's also just the fact that you need pay for. they would really like to see highway spending con vand to what the highway trust fund -- which of course is a problem because it's based on a diesel and fuel tax that remains stagnant since 1993. it hasn't changed since then and as cars have become more fuel efficient because of government emission standards, et cetera, that has created essentially a drain that has resulted in the highway trust fund continually being depleted. >> let's talk about the calendar. the house is out next week. the senate we heard from the senator schumer expecting to

vote on this measure next tuesday. the house of representatives back the week of march 19th. >> yes, so basically what's going to happen next week is the house is going to try and get its act together on hr-7 the bill they introduced january 31st. chairman mica who introduced the bill obviously has a lot at stake here, and he has been told that you know, the senate bill is what the house is going to vote on unless he can get those votes. he's going to be out there pushing a lot to try and get freshmen on board, perhaps get democratic support on board. the mass transit account change that he had proposed orally he has now signaled he's willing to leave the mass transit account intact with the hope of getting more support. of course, that's going to be heavy lift because house democrats including nancy pelosi have already said they do prefer the senate bill as the way forward. >> nathan hurst following the story for cq roll call joining us live tonight here in

washington. thanks as always for your time. >> thanks so much. >> the headline this evening from "the wall street journal" website, mitt romney breaking with john mccain on syria. he stopped short today of advocating for military intervention in syria at a news conference earlier in the day making a break from a prominent republican supporter, arizona senator john mccain, the 2008 republican nominee. let's take you back to yesterday and the exchange between senator mccain and defense secretary leon panetta, this before the senate armed services committee. >> the president said yesterday he has taken no options off the table, mr. panetta, in the case of syria. you said in your opening statement that includes "potential military options if necessary." you said in your statement, and yet, admiral sterling silver rit tas and general mattis stated there had been no contingent sill planning either innate coor centcom. will there be some contingency planning? >> we have looked at a number of

options that could be involved here. >> but will there be plans? >> we have not done the detailed planning because we are waiting for the direction of the president to do that. >> the president, mr. secretary, president obama issued a presidential directive stating "the prevention of mass atrocities is -- this is a presidential directive "a core national security interest of the united states." that's the administration's policy. with at least 7 thought 500 and possibly more than 10,000 dead with the side using thanks gaining momentum according to general mattis, would you agree that mass atrocities have occurred and are occurring in syria? >> i don't think there's any question na we're experiencing mass atrocities there. >> so the president said yesterday he's taking no options off the table and you said in your opening statement that in xwoets as i mentioned potential military options if necessary. can you tell us how long, how much longer the killing would

have to continue, how many additional civilian lives would have to be lost in order to convince you that the military measures of this kind that we are proposing necessary to end the killing and force to leave power, how many more have to die, 10,000 more, 20,000 more? how many more? >> i think the question as you stated yourself, senator, is the effort to try to build an international consensus as to what action we do take. that makes the most sense. what doesn't make sense is to take unilateral action at this point. as secretary of defense, before i recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, i've got to make very sure that we know what the mission is, i've got to make very sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, at what price. and whether or not it will make matters better or worse.

those are the considerations that i have to engage in. and obviously, the administration believes that every effort ought to be made t international setting to to try to build the kind of international consensus that worked in libya and that can work in syria if we can develop that. >> defense secretary leon panetta yesterday before the senate armed services committee. joining us live on capitol hill tonight is senator john mccain, republican of arizona. the ranking republican on the senate armed services committee. thanks as always for being with us here on c-span. >> thank you, steve. >> let me begin with the obvious question. were you satisfied with the answer from leon panetta. >> of course not. first of all he said whether we act unilaterally or not, no one is certainly not me is in favor of acting unilaterally. they were spreading that all over town yesterday that john mccain wants to act unilaterally. in fact, it was reported as such

because they told "the wall street journal" reporter that when every statement that i made indicates that that's not the case. and then he said he's got to figure out whether it would make the situation better or worse. now, here's thousands of syrians being slaughtered by ba share al asad. how do you make it worse? and, of course, the fact is that so far, they have done absolutely nothing. now, since the hearing and since a very strong editorial in the "washington post" and other organs around the country and around the world, there has been at least some movement on the part of the administration. i hope that they are serious. but it's -- it was -- the whole thing was very disappointing yesterday. >> let me ask you about some of the parallels and you brought

this up in the hearing yesterday. president clinton in bosnia, president obama in libya and now the situation in syria. what are the similarities and i guess also, what are the differences? >> well, each one of these are different in some respect. but in the case of bosnia, it was a clear case of genocide taking place in the heart of europe. and president clinton and president bush, i might add, and this president have said that it is a national security issue to prevent acts of genocide and gross abuses of human rights. all of this, of course, is gauged on whether we can actually affect the situation or not. unfortunately, there are some situations where we can't. so in bosnia, it was never -- bosnia was never a threat to

america's national security. in libya, we led from behind, unfortunately, because if we had used the full weight of american air power, there would have been thousands of casualties less because the conflict would have been over more rapidly. this is the new strategy apparently is called leading from behind. in syria, it's even more impactful because the head of our central command, general mattis testified before the committee that if syria was -- if assad was overthrown and syria went in another direction, it would be the greatest blow to iran in the last 25 years. so there is a national security implication to have of this, as well. as obviously, you know, iran is causing a near international crisis because of their continued efforts to build a

nuclear weapon exacerbated relations between the united states and israel, et cetera. so there are some differences, but you know, our fundamental facts remain, 7,500 conservative estimate of syrians have been massacred. they -- the iranians are there on the ground as well as bringing arms. and the russians are supplying arms. so it's not a fair fight, steve. it is a -- it is a bloodletting that's going on and the city of homs, major city in syria has just been turned into a killing ground. so i think it's very important to recognize that it is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in to watch this unfair fight go on. that's why air power, foreign air power, our air power and allies and coalition ranging

from other arab nations to nato i think is completely in order to equalize the situation. and finally one other point. the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs both said, well, sooner or later assad will fall. i don't know where they get that confident because certainly events on the ground in recent days indicate that assad is gaining rather than losing ground. >> but as you know, a top syrian official calling the government of priz assad a sinking ship, he defected today. >> uh-huh. >> and he is urging his fellow countrymen to do the same. >> well, let's hope that that is the beginning of an exodus, but i also would point out, it's good news but he is a deputy oil minster. certainly was not one of the clique that surrounds bashir al assad. again, we have seen not only not a letup but an increase in iranian activity in syria which

then, of course, contributes to their ability to continue the killing. >> we're talking with senator john mccain live on capitol hill tonight. quick quell about afghanistan. you were there earlier this year. >> uh-huh. >> you were critical of the administration putting in place these time lines, the timetable for the withdrawal of u.s. troops in afghanistan. what did you see? >> well, i see april a very nervous karzai. i see an individual who is trying to adjust top the united states and our allies' withdrawal and remain in power. we really are hoping and working very hard to get a strategic agreement between ourselves and afghanistan and karzai to maintain a presence of u.s. forces in afghanistan, which i think would be a very important signal that we are not

abandoning afghanistan, but the corruption problem which continues to get significant coverage is still a very serious problem, and the other problem, of course, is the continued protections and assistance to the haqqani network from the isi, the intelligence agency in pakistan in afghanistan which are killing americans and that's a hard thing to swallow. and so i'm not sure exactly how the all this is going to come out, but when the president continues to announce troop withdrawals which his military commanders who he appointed state cause greater risk to success of the entire endeavor, then one has to wonder why the president is making these announcements on accelerating withdrawal except that there happens to be an election coming up in the beginning of november of this year.

>> senator mccain, one final political question. four years ago, you were able to wrap up the republican nomination by this time super tuesday. have you endorsed mitt romney. he has yet to close the deal. why? >> i think part of it is the proportional allocation of delegates in 2008, it was winner take all, but i also think the super pacs, as a result of this outrageous and ignorant decision by the united states supreme court called citizens united which has unleashed these quote super pacs and people are, well, the one las vegas casino mogul is able to inject over $20 million of his own money which then leads to the negative ads which then leads to heightened unfavorable ratings on the part of the american people of the candidates. every day that goes by when there's this is proliferation of

super pacs and negative ads, it harms our republican ability to keep our eye on the real or adjust our sights on the real target which is obviously to defeat president obama next november. >> senator john mccain, republican of arizona joining us on capitol hill tonight. thanks as always for being with us. >> thank you, my friend. bye. >> this is "washington today" on c-span radio. energy secretary steven chu also on capitol hill. the hill newspaper saying he wanted to make one thing clear, the obama administration does want lower gas prices. secretary chu's remarks coming amid some intensifying republican attacks on the administration over prices at the pump. in some parts of california, premium unlead now between $5.550 to as high as $6 a gallon. more testimony today on capitol hill and we'll let you listen to one of the exchanges with representative mike pompeii, a republican from kansas, this. >> in the president's budget i

assume your handiwork, it says the goal is to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. >> that's correct. >> how we doing? >> parred. >> how we doing? we on track to make that goal? >>. >> and well, we're going to wait till 2015, but in terms of what's happening both technically, i think things are developing. and i remain hopeful. >> we going to make it? how many do we have today? how many electric vehicles on the road today? >> i don't know the exact number. i'll get back to you. >> less than a million by multiple orders of magnitude, is that right? >> it's certainly significantly less than a million. >> would the administration support higher gas prices to achieve this goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015? >> the administration wants lower gas prices. >> here your actions belie those words in 345my judgment.

the president said he would buy a chevy volt. he said he would buy one five years from now when he's not the president anymore. i'm not sure about the time line. but in any event, last week, he announced that chevy announced that the volt would be suspended from production because of demand temporary laid off workers. how many taxpayer dollars have gone in support of the chevy volt? >> you know, i don't know the. i know that the chevy volt is a great car. i think you know, there's a huge investment by gm and leadership from gm to invest in this. and right now, i'm still very hopeful that the chevy volt will be adopted. >> i appreciate if you'd get back and let this committee know how much money has been expended so far on the chevy volt. do you drive one? >> no, it's -- i don't own a car at the moment. >> fair enough.

fis car automotive received over $500 million in do ke loans in 2010. you cut off the funding last may because it had not met sits sales target. that was one of the stated reasons for the cutoff of the loans if i understand it correctly. do you think we're looking at another solyndra? >> well, it's much more complicated than what you said. we have milestones within our loan program and as we disburse funds of any of our people we give loans to, we work with the companies and do that, and so you know, we're hoping fis car can work through the things, its temporary blips and continue. >> i hope so, too. how much exposure does the united states taxpayer have to fisker today? >> i can get back to you on the exact number. >> i appreciate that. just so you know, it was sometime before i was here but we heard the same reassurances

about solyndra up through times the doa was still advancing money against those credits. we heard you were monitoring, watching, taking good care that that money be repaid to the treasury and that's not going to happen. so i hope that you're right about fis car and that the taxpayer doesn't end up another $500 million short. thank you, mr. secretary. i appreciate your time today. >> the testimony before a house energy subcommittee with mike pompeo top steven chu. one bit of news that the energy secretary does not currently own a car. this is "washington today" on c-span radio. all of our event coverage available on our website at c-span.org. click on the video library. with more than 46 million recipients, the food stamp has become one of the government's biggest benefit programs and one of the biggest targets for those who think the federal government isn't doing enough to prevent fraud. today a hearing in washington in which lawmakers complained that some retailers are illegally dealing with the benefits. the house before the committee

posting a slick video on its website that's trying to gather recent news reports about exactly what is happening. representative day jar lay is a republican everyone testimony as he questioned phyllis fong and kenyan faulkner, the pennsylvania inspector general before a house committee on food stamp fraud. >> miss fong, if we're going to try to do the very best whether it's 1% it, a half a percent, we need to find out what the problems are and how to solve them. can you tell me, what is the most typical kind of fraud that you see in the food stamp program? >> well, we have a number of schemes that we see. most of them, sir, focus on trafficking. which is a situation where a recipient goes to a retailer and tries to cash in the card for money and in which case, both parties come away feeling that they've gotten a good bargain.

there are numbers of ways that this happens. we, we've seen different schemes over the years. where retailers and recipients get very creative about shopping the card as it were. >> okay. do people who illegally traffic food stamps tend to be people that also try to commit fraud on other government assistance programs like section 8, housing or medicaid? >> i don't believe we have any data on that, although i will say we do on occasion do joint investigations with other government agencies such as hhs, which manages the medicaid, medicare program and sometimes there will be recipients who are involved in all of those programs. >> how much money could a store owner who traffics in food stamps likely make illegally? >> well, i think you'd want to look at it on sort of a per benefit basis. it can range. there are some very small retailers who in the context of